Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6730035" data-attributes="member: 177">Any finite set of usable rules is going to have exploits available.&nbsp; It isn't half-assed to have such gaps, it is nature.&nbsp; Go, build a system yourself, and have 10,000 people beat on it, and you'll see what happens.&nbsp; And there is a fine line between, &quot;this is just a smart choice by the character&quot; and &quot;this is actually abuse of rules&quot; because the character doesn't do it until the player realizes, &quot;Hey, wait, if I do X, then Y, then Z, I'm a freakin' god!&quot;&nbsp; The scroll example you give is a great one - in effect, the complaint here is that the developers of the game did not build in a low enough explicit cap in the number of scrolls a locale would have available.&nbsp; Is that half-assed, or is it just expecting the GM to exercise a bit of judgement and say, &quot;No&quot; on occasion?&nbsp; Do the *rules* have to patch *every* potential issue, or can we expect the GM to do it some or most of the time?&nbsp; Would we really want to work with a set of rules that actually had *everything* under explicit control? If *everything* is under explicit control, then the system becomes fragile to changes and house rules.&nbsp; If the game has too little under control, it is easily abused.&nbsp; Doesn't it strike you as best to lie somewhere inbetween, such that the GM can adjust to suit local needs?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 6730035, member: 177"] Any finite set of usable rules is going to have exploits available. It isn't half-assed to have such gaps, it is nature. Go, build a system yourself, and have 10,000 people beat on it, and you'll see what happens. And there is a fine line between, "this is just a smart choice by the character" and "this is actually abuse of rules" because the character doesn't do it until the player realizes, "Hey, wait, if I do X, then Y, then Z, I'm a freakin' god!" The scroll example you give is a great one - in effect, the complaint here is that the developers of the game did not build in a low enough explicit cap in the number of scrolls a locale would have available. Is that half-assed, or is it just expecting the GM to exercise a bit of judgement and say, "No" on occasion? Do the *rules* have to patch *every* potential issue, or can we expect the GM to do it some or most of the time? Would we really want to work with a set of rules that actually had *everything* under explicit control? If *everything* is under explicit control, then the system becomes fragile to changes and house rules. If the game has too little under control, it is easily abused. Doesn't it strike you as best to lie somewhere inbetween, such that the GM can adjust to suit local needs? [/QUOTE]

Verification